|
The Mormon Question
New York Herald
3 May 1857
The governorship of Utah has again been tendered to Major Ben. McCulloch of Texas and it is not yet known whether he will accept or not. Should he definitely decline, the peace of the country and the very existence of the Salt Lake settlement will impose on the President the duty of appointing a man of equal nerve, courage and sagacity to the old Texan Ranger. For, of all the questions which embarrass the statesmen of the country at the present time, one of the most embarrassing is without doubt the question of Utah, and the Mormons. Whichever way it be examined, it bristles with difficulties.
Regarded politically, the Mormons are obviously entitled, under the Constitution, to adopt the form of religion and the social usages which suit them best. No authority to interfere with their religious institutions has been committed to the Executive, or to Congress, or to any other person, persons, or assembly: they alone bear the responsibility of them. And according to the popular and usual reading of the constitution, wheresoever the Mormons shall have gathered a population sufficient, and framed a constitution, republican in its leading doctrines, the Congress of the United States is bound to vote for the admission to the Union as a sovereign State. Objection may be taken to their polygamy; but, according to the doctrine of the Nebraska law, which is the only true and safe doctrine for the country at large, such an objection as this would be impertinent and Congress would have no right to press it. The subject of matrimony is one of these domestic questions which the Nebraska law clearly places beyond the pale of Congressional interference. According to the political principles which form the present basis of the policy of the United States government, we are, in strictness, bound to admit Utah, with adequate population and a republican government, without making the least inquiry about her religious institutions.
Again, most of the assailants of the Mormons treat them as pagans and heathens, and call upon the American people to interfere as "Christians" to put them down. But the men who talk this way do not, as it might seem, enjoy a monopoly of Christianity. The Mormons can quote the Bible with any D.D. of these parts. The only difference between their study and their inferences from the Inspired Record arises from their selecting, as their favorite portions of scripture, the Old, while our parsons prefer the New Testament. But all the Christian churches admit that both are of equal authenticity and equal authority. Wherefore it follows that, when the Mormons show us that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the other patriarchs, Solomon, the wisest of men, and David, the man after God's own heart, were inveterate polygamists and kept harems to the extent of their means, our Christian reasoners are necessarily silenced. They are shown, by unanswerable evidence, that the vice which is reproached to the Mormons was practised by God's peculiar people, and, seemingly, with particular unction by the very strong men among this people who were the most frequent recipients of the divine bounty. So far, therefore, as the Holy Bible is concerned, the Mormons are, according to strict logic, much better qualified to persuade us to take four wives, than we are to induce them to stick to one.
Politically and religiously the, the Mormons have the whiphand of us, and know it. They know that the safety of the Union will not permit us to establish such a precedent as interference by Congress with the religious institutions of a Territory or State; and they are aware of the vantage ground which their adversaries give them by appealing to Heaven and the Scriptures to condemn their depravities. What the, are we to do? Shall we confess ourselves incapable of keeping these polygamists out of the Union? We think not.
In the first place, though long usage seems to have given to "may" the force of "must" in the section of the constitution referring to the admission of new States, it does not appear at all certain that such a construction of the sentence is warranted. "May" is not the same as "must;" Congress may well have been endowed with a power, without being charged with a duty. It "may" admit Utah if the interest of the Union would be extended thereby; but it "must" meet at regular intervals to take counsel on the affairs of the nation. We suggest to the administration and to the scattered members of Congress to give this point proper thought.
If the apprehension of the South—that the Northern men will vote against the admission of every new slave State—renders Congress obdurate on this head, the only remaining resource of the administration will be to act upon the evidences of rebellion now before the world. It is notorious that the United States Court has been despoiled, and the records stolen; for this it is competent for the government to demand and exact satisfaction. Our contemporary, the Richmond Enquirer wishes to see the fair "fields of Utah laid waste, and the Mormons hung by hundreds." We are not so comprehensive in our project of subjugation. A sensible, judicious Governor with soldiers enough to constitute him a body guard, would very possibly achieve the same end by more pacific agencies of example, precept, and private management. A split among the Saints would demolish them all; and if Mr. Buchanan's Governor be wise—be he who he may—he will infallibly produce this split, then undertake wars, and so win glory and profit.
|